Re: [OT] Micro$oft versus security

[Erik Wikström <erik-wikstrom@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2005-09-22 04:47, walt wrote:
> I just got this item from SANS, and I still can't quite believe
> what my eyes are seeing:
> ==============================================
>
>   --Microsoft Bans Weak Crypto in New Code
> (15 September 2005)
> A new policy at Microsoft bans developers from using functions using the
> DES, MD4, MD5 and in some cases the SHA1 encryption algorithms in their
> code because increasingly sophisticated cyber attacks are threatening
> the security of these algorithms.  Microsoft recommends the use of the
> (Secure Hash Algorithm) SHA256 encryption algorithm and (Advanced
> Encryption Standard) AES cipher.  The decision comes as part of
> Microsoft's twice-a-year update to its Secure Development Lifecycle
> policies.  The company also hopes eventually to remove the vulnerable
> encryption from older code.
> http://www.eweek.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=160307,00.asp
> [Editor's Note (Schultz): Microsoft deserves a proverbial round of
> applause for its decision concerning use of cryptography in its
> products.
> (Schneier): This will improve potential security for their products at
> the cost of backwards compatibility -- I call that a good trade-off.]
> ===============================================
>
> I have Schneier's second edition of Applied Cryptography (which is
> where I learned what little I know about the subject) and he does a
> good imitation of someone who really knows the subject.
>
> I can cite decades of bad (or ridiculous) decisions by M$ concerning
> anything to do with security -- but seeing Schneier's name attached to
> this article makes me wonder if things have changed...
>
> Anyone here agree that MD5 and SHA1 are 'weak' crypto?  Any other
> thoughts about the subject?

I would not say that MD5 and SHA1 are weak, but considering that some
companies run the same version of a MS-product for ages and considering
the reports of attacks against then, it might be a good idea. For some
things though, such as integrity-checks (of non-critical data)they will
still work fine (I still use CRC32).

Regarding MS and security in general, I actually think they they are
starting to learn. How well they have learned though is still to be
seen.

--
Erik Wikström